Share this

The Obama presidency-in-waiting has already proven a boon to one person—author /historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose book Team of Rivals is suddenly on everyone’s lips because of its ballyhooed role as a playbook for the president-elect. The hubbub has made Goodwin’s book one of the hottest titles on Amazon.com, ranked as the online seller’s 11th bestselling book as of Sunday afternoon.

It is worth noting that the day after the election, Lincoln took a blank piece of paper and wrote down the names of his preliminary cabinet selections. (Only 7 seats in the cabinet then, more than twice that many now.) “Before the sun went down , I had made up my cabinet, “ he wrote. “It was almost the same as I finally selected. “ What took Lincoln time was not determining who he wanted, but making sure all the competing factions he had to deal with would support his choices. Perhaps that is also true this time around.

Here’s a piece of pure punditry, unsupported by any reporting or inside knowledge: Obama will announce the names of his top four cabinet members (State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General) at once, thus diffusing potential critical reactions to any one choice, and emphasizing the importance of having a team (rivals or not) that can work together.

MIC vs MIKE? A reader challenged my spelling of "open mic," contending that it should be "open mike." While the skeptical reader has already been pummeled by others, I would refer all to Vol. IX, Second Edition, Oxford English Dictionary, p 710, wherein the word mic is described as an abbreviation of microphone and page 759 wherein the word "mike" is also described an abbreviation of microphone. Usage, see for example Comedy Central, clearly favors "mic."

This is our second open mic session, where contributors raise their own topics rather than respond to a question. For the conversation on the GOP's road to recovery, click here.

Looking back on the presidential campaign of 2008, I am struck by the degree to which Barack Obama managed to sideline the entertainment industry in his quest for the White House.Yes, there were the inevitable Hollywood fund-raisers, the inevitable Bruce Springsteen concerts, and the inevitable Oprah endorsement.But in large measure the Obama campaign relegated show business figures to inconspicuous cameo roles.This was smart politics, because it deprived the opposition of one of its usual stalking horses, while simultaneously keeping the candidate from appearing frivolous.

Contrast this approach with other recent Democratic presidential nominees.On more than one occasion John Kerry found himself embarrassed by his celebrity supporters.Bill Clinton’s chumminess with Hollywood became almost self-parodying in its intensity.Even Michael Dukakis could not resist directly flirting with the entertainment community.

Obama’s approach to Hollywood reminds me of John F. Kennedy, who in 1960 rarely appeared on the same stage with the famous names who campaigned on his behalf.Although show business has become a key constituency of the Democratic party, too often candidates allow themselves to be blinded by the glitter of these high-profile supporters.Obama’s deft handling of this special interest group speaks highly of his political prowess.

Amid loud rejoicing of Barack Obama's election as our first African American President, a quiet celebration of another monumentous first: General Ann Dunwoody broke the "brass ceiling" Friday when, for the first time in history, the United States Army promoted a woman to four-star general.
General Dunwoody stands on her own stellar 33-year career: she was the first woman to command a battalion in the 82nd Airborne Division, the first woman general officer at Fort Bragg, and among the Army's first female three-star generals.

Dunwoody also stands on the shoulders of thousands of military servicewomen leading efforts to protect and defend our country: the military named its first female one-star in 1970, the first female two-star in 1978 and the first female three-star in 1996.

Kudos to General Ann Dunwoody for being a powerful role model whose exemplary service has shattered barriers and blazed a trail for others, and to the U.S. Army for recognizing her leadership talents.

Given the various protectionist noises that Barack Obama made during the course of the Presidential campaign, there are plenty of people who are concerned that an Obama Administration will be one of the most illiberal in recent memory when it comes to the issue of trade. Of course, it should come as no surprise that some of the concerned are members of the Bush Administration, but it should be noted that Prime Minister Gordon Brown--celebrated here by contemporary liberals for his interventionist approach to combating the financial crisis--is also coming out against protectionism and against the kind of industry-wide bailouts that are currently being contemplated for the automobile industry here in the United States.

One wonders whether the incoming Obama Administration is taking note of all of this concern regarding the shape and nature of its trade policy. Change We Can Believe In was supposed to encompass a (supposedly) newfound willingness to respect the words, thoughts and policy preferences of our allies. Doing so when it comes to the issue of trade would be most welcome, seeing as how allies like Gordon Brown are in favor of trade liberalization, but doing so would upset and enrage Barack Obama's domestic political constituency.

So, will he do the right thing by that constituency? Or will he do the right thing by his country? Stay tuned, but the fact that we even have to entertain doubts about the commitment of the incoming President of the United States to free trade during a period of global recession is more than a little worrying.

Nothing really. Today, California is burning to the ground. Nobody is looking for FEMA because: #1 disaster response is a state and local responsibility; #2 FEMA has done a great job in a busy year-forest fires, floods, hurricanes. Still there are folks that want to rip FEMA out of homeland security. That's pure politics and bad governance. Let's hope Washington ignores that idea.

The economy and who's who in Washington are certainly important, but what could really change under Barack Obama is American culture. So let me offer my list of the Top 10 ways President Obama will influence American culture:

I would like to ask a question. What is the difference between the government using taxpayer money to bail out investment banks, who have made bad management decisions, and bailing out General Motors, which has also made bad management decisions? Or put another way, how can the administration justify logically bailing out one publicly-traded company and not another? After all, we still have had no proof that the collapse of these investment firms was really going to cause the collapse of the American economic system, anymore than the collapse of General Motors.

Sometime in the next week or so, Barack and Michelle Obama will do what most American parents get to do, and what his grandmother did for him: choose the right school for their children. My wife and I send our own to one of their candidate schools, and would be delighted if the Obama children were to join them. It is also one of the many private schools participating in the DC school voucher program, the only vehicle providing poor families with anything like the choices made by the Obamas, and, before them, the Clintons, Gores, Kennedys (all of them) and 52 percent of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. But on almost the same day his children walk into class, President Obama will turn and slam the door in the face of many others waiting in line. He plans to end the one federal program that allows them to be there. They can still have a refundable tax credit, of course, just not to go to school with his children.

This is a civil rights issue, as great as any other remaining to be fought. Ultra-liberal columnist William Raspberry, who described himself as a "Reluctant Convert to School Choice," wrote, "it seems as obvious for poor children as for rich ones that one-size-fits-all education doesn't make sense." Amen. Many leading civil rights leaders, such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson, sent their children to private schools instead of the neighborhood public school. The Obamas did the same in Chicago. School choice (and specifically vouchers) enjoy the support of a solid majority of parents of color. It should be every much of a right as choosing where to sit on a bus, and denying it has been almost as harmful to its impoverished victims.

School choice is also widespread, unless you're poor. Most parents choose their children's schools by deciding where to live. Homes in good school districts command a premium relative to schools of lesser quality or student body achievement, even taking into account the socioeconomic status of the families. Thus, even working class families exercise a measure of school selection. The same cannot be said for the urban poor. To them, vouchers are the only means of their children enjoying the same path to success as did young "Barry" Obama. Of course, there's busing, or having the government make their house payments in a better school district, but as the District of Columbia shows while spending nearly $15,000 per student, money doesn't buy nearly as much success as choice.

Opponents try to muddle the question by claiming that vouchers don't offer sufficiently better results than government-run schools. Try telling that to the thousands of poor parents who have lined up to apply for them. Or, better yet, try taking it away from the parents and members of congress who can afford it. And to those who argue that vouchers support religion, ask the millions of urban non-Catholics who have sent their children to Catholic schools. When polled, 83 percent of public school parents and 82 percent of urban poor parents wanted such schools to be among the choices to which they could send their children. My own children are the product of a Catholic-Jewish marriage, and our Jewish children have attended Baptist, Presbyterian, Quaker and Episcopalian schools, as well as public schools. I must have missed the indoctrinations.

The District of Columbia school system spends nearly 70 percent more per student than any neighboring jurisdiction, and vastly more than the less-segregated Catholic schools next door, yet for most students it fails miserably, and will probably continue to do so despite the noble efforts of its new chancellor. The private school vouchers available to poor families are about half that amount (the schools themselves make up much of the difference), with the recipients selected at random among the large pool of low income applicants. Even allowing for fixed overhead costs, the voucher program saves the DC public school system thousands of dollars of cost per student per year, thus discrediting one of the most dubious (of many) claims about vouchers, that they divert resources from the public system. The worst thing about the program is that it is not larger and more generous, but ask any the recipients (almost all struggling African-American families), and they will tell you how very, very important it is to them and their children.

I'm a big skeptic of federal involvement in K-12 education, which I regard more as a nationwide than a national government concern, but if Uncle Sam is going to stick his nose under the tent, he should do so in a way that liberates the most in need. I'm also continually confounded by the otherwise progressive and socially sympathetic parents, their plaid-uniformed offspring at their side, who oppose poor parents having the same choice as they. I'm sure that would hold true for many of the liberal contributors to The Arena as well. Spend more on the public schools (i.e., the ones they avoided like a leper colony), they say, yet when asked if doing so would change their own choice, they demure. Such hypocrisy is epitomized by one classic moment of shame in 2003, when Congress was first voting on the DC school voucher program. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, after initially announcing her opposition to the program, slunk to the Senate floor to vote merely "present".

She was shamed into doing so by a prominent full page ad in Louisiana's largest newspaper. The ad featured Virginia Walden-Ford, a poor DC mother and leader of an African-American pro-choice parents group. She pointed out that Landrieu, like most senators who opposed the program, sent her own children to private school. In fact, that very same school is now on the Obama’s short list. As the President-elect strolls the halls of this peaceful and notably diverse enclave, the most important "hope" for the 2,000 poor families waiting outside is that he also knows how to feel shame.

I strongly agree with Senator Patrick Leahy, my colleague from Vermont, that Senator Joseph Lieberman should not chair the Senate Homeland Security Committee in the next session of Congress. To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country. Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not "change we can believe in."

I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, when he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship. For that matter, I also think Senator Lieberman should not continue to chair subcommittees of the environment and armed services committees.

Hillary at Foggy Bottom? That's the speculation, of course. I don't know whether a Clinton appointment as Secretary of State will come to pass but if it does, Clinton will be the latest in a long line of . . . er . . . Clintonites to join the Clinton Obama Administration.

Perhaps I should not be so snarky. After all, the Clintonites are the last Democrats to people a Democratic Administration so it is natural that with the return of the Democrats to the White House, there should be a fair number of Clintonites coming on board. But this many? Amusing. So much for Change We Can Believe In; one can be forgiven for wondering which candidate really won the Iowa caucus back in the snows of January. Oh, and despite the derision of lobbyists during the Presidential campaign, we see that at least one Clintonite lobbyist is joining the Obama White House. Imagine that. Betcha there will be others.

Because no absurd story would be complete without Andrew Sullivan's involvement in it, consider this post in which Barack Obama's Unofficial Press Secretary praises the Hillary choice because "[l]eft to fester in the Senate, Clinton will plot against the president if he doesn't actively seek her support and engagement and 'spread the political wealth' of his mandate."

Gushes Sullivan, "[i]t's an elegant and shrewd move; both public spirited and yet coldly calculating at the same time. Pure Obama." Whatever. Not once in his post does Sullivan express any concern that basing the choice of America's chief diplomat on the need to ensure that said diplomat doesn't spend time in the Senate "plotting" against the President means that the presence of actual diplomatic acumen and international savvy at Foggy Bottom is being sacrificed to naked re-election considerations four years down the road, after a Presidential campaign that has lasted two years just ended. Not once in his post does Sullivan state any unease with the prospect of having Hillary Clinton--a politician Sullivan raged against and obsessed over before Sarah Palin came to the fore--as Secretary of State. What Obama dictates shall be, as far as the writer for the Daily Dish is concerned. Give Sullivan his due; if Caesar had such loyal acolytes, Brutus and Cassius would have been murdered in their sleep, their infamous deed undone and their names unknown to posterity.

The G-20 Declaration, just released, is surprisingly good. If the Obama administration accepts the Declaration, and if all countries actually implement their intentions, the world will be a better place. Come the next G20 meeting, promised by April 30, 2009, we will know whether today’s Declaration was hot air or a real commitment.

As the Washington Post’s London correspondent, I covered Labor’s victory over the Conservative Party in 1997. The morning after the votes were counted, Major was driven to Buckingham Palace where he submitted his resignation. Blair then arrived, and accepted the Queen’s invitation to form a government. Moving vans had already carried Major’s belongings away, and Blair’s in.

One would have to be an idiot to have a prominent role in the musical theater world while contributing to anti-gay causes, so in that regard, it's understandable that the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre was pressured to resign after being discovered to have given $1,000 to the Prop 8 effort. And perhaps being artistic director is a prominent enough role that this was the only plausible outcome. I just hope this isn't the norm -- folks should be able to engage in controversial political activity outside the workplace without losing their jobs, whether it's the Alabaman fired from her job in 2004 for a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car, or Goodwill sewing machine operator fired, in his supervisor's words, "because of your views of the U.S. government, which are contrary to those of this agency, you are a disruptive force and cannot work here anymore."

Few states protect outside political behavior from retaliation in the workplace, and that's a shame, especially with the Internet providing such easy access to researching someone's contributions and political speech. Let's not make blacklisting the norm. I've written more on this topic -- click here.

Before the Palin thing is completely forgotten, I just want to throw in my two cents. I think she was a disaster for McCain because she destroyed the logic of his candidacy.

His best argument was that we live in perilous times and can’t afford to have a president with no experience in foreign policy and national security. But McCain destroyed this argument by appointing as his vice president someone with even less experience than Obama. In a stroke, McCain took off the table not only his best argument for being president but really his only argument. He should have picked Lieberman and run on a campaign of bipartisan national unity. It might not have worked, but at least McCain would have lost with some dignity.

The question whether to bail out the big three automakers is a defining moment on whether we are going to go down the road of corporate welfare. The big three are bankrupt because for decades they have built cars that Americans do not want to buy, including SUVs which are environmentally unsound. Just as air travel did not end when Pan Am went broke, car manufacturing in the U.S. need not end if the big three go broke.

We can provide for incentives for new companies and managers to take over the big three production facilities and retool them to make fuel efficient cars. The government ought not itself to get into the business of making cars or running the big three because this is clearly something government is no good at. Just as the U.S. Post Office does a less good job than Federal Express or UP, a government run big three automotive concern would inevitably end up disastrously making cars no one would want to buy. Let's spend the money we would have spent bailing out the big three retraining autoworkers and providing a cushion for them as they look for other jobs, but let's also not enmesh the government in running a car making business.

Can someone please tell economic reporters about the housing bubble? They missed the bubble on the way up, relying almost exclusively on economic "experts" who somehow failed to recognize an $8 trillion housing bubble. Remarkably, they are still relying on the same pool of experts (doesn't failure matter in this business?), many of whom apparently cannot even see the housing bubble now that it is collapsing.

It is important to understand the bubble for both housing policy and larger economic policy. Efforts to stabilize housing prices at bubble-inflated levels are just foolhardy. This would be like having the government try to support a 5000 NASDAQ. Also, the obsession with consumer credit, which is behind Secretary Paulson's latest TARP-like plan for consumer debt, is completely wrong-headed. Banks are turning down loans because consumers are much worse risks now that they have no equity in their homes. A person with $100,000 of home equity is far less likely to default on a credit card debt or a car loan than a person with zero equity. It would be helpful if reporters could find experts on the economy who understood this.

Has Obama made his first foreign policy blunder? After meeting with Polish president, it is unclear if the new administration is sold on missile defense sites in Poland and Czech Republic. That cedes initiative to Russia which wants both countries back under its influence. Bad move Obama.

Peter Laffin (guest)
Elementary Teacher , CO:

First off, it's open "mike", not mic.
Joe Lieberman stood on the same stage as Rudy Guiliani, Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. And he was no less venomous than the bunch. He chose sides, now let him live with it. If he threatens to become a Republican, he will get ousted in Connecticut. It's his bed.

James Hill (guest)
Retiree , FL:

Politically speaking, what is the answer to the question, "Given a finite planet size, how can humankind manage the growing population and dwindling resources? Is Democracy a dead man? Who will make the decisions?

Stanley Hirtle (guest)
lawyer , OH:

re: open mike
I am concerned that FDIC Commissioner Sheila Bair seems to be the only official who is willing to fix "toxic" mortgages and save peoples homes in foreclosure. FDIC is doing it with the IndyMac bank that they took over. However Secretary Paulson will not use any bailout money for this purpose. Since bad mortgages are the underlying cause of the credit crunch, and because foreclosures destroy families and neighborhoods and generally result in a large loss for the loanholder as well, you would think this would be worth doing. However Paulson seems committed to handing the money to corporations. In particular it is troubling about the car makers. GM has been behind the Japanese automakers since the 70s and has never caught up in quality and reliability. Conservatives blame the unions and of course the lack of universal health care is an issue, particularly for retirees. But the real problems seem to be bad management and a dysfunctional corporate structure, as well as investing in Congressmen and Presidents who resist fuel economy standards so they can make profitable gas guzzlers. If the government bails them out it should put 80% of the executive salaries in a trust for 5 years and only give it to them if they get a respectable number of cars recommended by organizations like Consumer Reports.

Karl Knapstein (guest)
service tech , CO:

NEW YEARS PREDICTION: The Bush-Cheney end of term "PARDONS" will set a record that will never be broken. They will be a Neo-Con "Who's-Who in America"

Francesco Canas (guest)
Student , CA:

In response to Mr. Sanders.
I would not bring the American people into this squabble amongst partisans. What the people want is someone who is suited for the position of chairman of that particular commitee. Joe Lieberman during his time in that particular position has showed no signs of incompetence that would warrant him getting booted off of his position. Just one example of this, he was one of those that lead investigations on the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina. If that had gone uninvestigated we would've remained ignorant of the mishandlings, and then what would've happened with Gustav, or perhaps an earthquake in California?
Ah but no doubt it would be an absolute slap in the face to Americans who supported President elect Obama for partisan feuds to stop and for merit to come first when it comes to positions. Wait, wasn't that part of the change Mr. Obama promised?

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

Who asked us to police the world? It's expensive, and we are not particularly good at it; establishing democracy by force is a contradiction in terms. Instead, while relaxing our militarized posture, we should firm up our diplomatic profile. We have a total of about 7000 Foreign Service officers; a paltry number, merely equal to the crew of a single aircraft carrier. Increasing our foreign service ten-fold might not be too much. Let's engage the world through a healthy cultural competition! (BTW - I find myself agreeing with Calabresi -- for the first time ever! On the other hand, Carafano is off the mark: we promised the Russians we would not militarize the former Eastern bloc. If we are breaking our word, then why should they trust us?)

Hans Giesholt (guest)
Electrician , AZ:

Maybe the Republicans should have prosecuted for fraud by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. they should have stopped this financial mess before it got this bad. They should look at the bad trade deals signed by the Clinton Administration and get out of these bad deals. They need to quit supporting offshoring. They need to return to the highest ethical standard. They nedd to quit playing politics and spending money like ther is no tomorrow. Tomorrow is here. They should have balanced the budget. How about they start being Americans instead of supporting those who contribute to their campaigns. How about going back to their districts and start talking to thier constiuents. They need to vote what their district wants. They need to start Representing their districts. They need to quit spending money and making big government. It is quite simple.

Dan Macmillan (guest)
Builder , MA:

As the new administration enters office and an assessment is made, I hope they find the courage to administer policies that place priority on oversight, accountability and opportunity. From tax policy to the military this country is on an unsustainable path. New earth-shattering programs ranging from, 10 hour school days/6 days a week to education mentors assigned to each district will give all our kids what is needed to succeed, time and attention. Pres. elect Obama has a chance at an FDR like presidency.

Nathaniel Hatfield (guest)
Amusement Park Rides Supervisor , KY:

I wish the media would figure out that Gov. Palin's 15 minutes are up. Post-election there has been almost as much Palin coverage as Obama, and yet there is no clear reason for it. Polls show that the majority of American's dislike her, and this talk of "2012" is absurd.
Sarah Palin embodies everything that is broken within the Republican Party, and the GOP knows it. Why would the single biggest drag on Sen. McCain's ticket be the "future" of the GOP?
Let this woman fade into the textbooks.

Andrew Harris (guest)
Executive Recruiter , MO:

For once, Steven Calabresi's comment was spot on. I agree with him 100%, corporate welfare cannot continue.
Here is my recommendation: Big Oil should bail out the big 3. After all, their allegiance to the oil companies is why the big 3 are so far behind on the production of cars that are more environmentally friendly.
Let them fail, and a new breed of vehicle manufacturers will be born.

Bill Orton (guest)
political and communications consultant , CA:

With nine weeks until the next Inauguration, all seems as it should be, and the indicators would suggest to me that the next Administration will be populated by many who gave up much to serve at the pleasure of the next President. A White House staff of competence and in place swiftly to shepherd and assist as the President-elect's vision of personnel recruitment is jigsawed together. I believe the gentleman who is no longer in the federal government, having resigned, can spend most of these fall and winter days in his city and neighborhood and mansion. I await eagerly not the list of names -- though the composite is a picture on which to snapshot the President's first days in office... no, to hear the gentleman speak to the people of this nation and our world about the America he shall lead, the nation we each inherit, and the future we must all earn together.

Marvin Tenenbaum (guest)
Attorney , IL:

People buy on credit and banks lend when they both believe in the same thing - the future. Take away that belief, that there is a strong financial future for people, and they will not buy something unless they have the cash to pay for what then need (or want) now. Until the unemployment rate starts to drop and people feel more secure in their jobs, consumer purchasing will be weak. The policies we pursue now should address this fundemental point or else we will be spinning our wheels. We can "bail out" GM now, but who will buy its cars? To the extent that the bail out of the auto industry is designed to save jobs so there will be people to buy the cars, then it makes sense. If it doesn't help job creation and job security, what's the point? We need to focus our efforts and money on the demand side of the economy.

Janet Huston (guest)
retired , WA:

I don't think Lieberman should be "rewarded" with anything at all. He is a turncoat who threw his Democratic constituency under the bus every day he stood behind John McCain and whispered answers into his ears. The idea of him being on important committees or any committees for that matter, is ridiculous after his performances of the past two years. Make Lieberman be be completely independent of the Democrats. Let him be a symbol of how things have changed.

Craiog Maltby (guest)
Marketing Pro , IA:

I'm sitting in the high school football stadium on a Saturday evening, waiting for my kids' marching band to take the field.
A kind older gentleman is sitting in front of us by himself, and we start up a typical conversation: "Where are you from, what instrument does your kid play," etc.
He then tells us he used to work at the Maytag plant in Newton, IA. Maytag was sold to Whirlpool several years ago, and one of the Midwest's mighty manufacturing centers had now all but disappeared, with jobs moved to other parts of the country and the world.
He then tells us about the classes he is taking at a community college. Biotechnology retraining classes offered to Maytag workers whose jobs were eliminated.
"We just grew some mouse tails this semester," he says. "And you know what? We're learning how you take smokestack emissions from a factory, shoot them into an algae pond, and watch the algae grow as they suck in the CO2. One day's worth of algae growth can produce 1000 gallons of biofuel."
"And yesterday I just cloned a carrot."
He was slightly giddy as he told us about his coursework and lab projects. This 60-some year old man who probably had spent the better part of 40 years building washers and dryers and should be on the cusp of serious retirement preparation was now spending two years to get himself educated to take on the next frontier of alternative energy and biotechnology.
"Cargill has 150 biotech production jobs at their corn processing complex in Eddyville, and they only have six candidates to fill them so far. They told me there is a job waiting for me when I'm done with my classwork."
I think I sense some bootstraps being pulled.

Mary Riggins (guest)
Retired , OK:

If "the Government" is going to help the homeowners keep their homes, they should help the people that have already lost their homes this year. They should forgive the tax these people are going to be required to pay. For most of them it will be devasting. For anyone that doesn't know, a person that has a home foreclosed has to pay taxes on the difference of how much they owe on it and how much it sells for. (If you owe 200,000 and your house is sold for 120,000 you would have to pay taxes on 80,000).
This is a way the government can help these people too since they have already lost their homes.

Pete VanderLaan (guest)
Artist , NH:

It seems to me that the threat of Lieberman bolting for the republicans is cutting off his nose to spite his face. Currently he is up for election in four years and is not a young man. I do not believe that he can be elected in Connecticut as a republican. In his waning years in the Senate I would think that given his fairly liberal voting record he would be unwelcome by the conservative wing of the republican party and would never attain any significant stature on that side of the aisle. His best bet seems to me to take his medicine from the Democrats for his stance during the general election and retain at least as much of his remaining "honor" as McCain will.
But there are so many problems that are more pressing, unless of course the final senate count comes out at 60, which I find to be a very long shot.

Ingrid Eckhoff (guest)
CEO and Founder of Excel Management Services and Advocate for Small Business , CA:

I think that President elect Obama should consider offering Colin Powell as well as Condi Rice positions in his cabinet. Furthmore, if he's serious about having opposing viewpoints in his cabinet, how about Joe Lieberman? This man stood by his principles, right or wrong. The Republican party will consider and treat Colin Powell as much a traitor as the Democrats consider Joe Lieberman one. Yet both men are highly honorable and only followed their conciences.

Bruce A Welch Jr. (guest)
Retired Government Employee , TN:

On the Poland missile defense system; I think It would be a mistake to miss this opportunity to set up a defense system that is used for one thing and one thing only and that is DEFENSE. Remember the great FDR who cut military spending, closed bases and decided that Cumbaya was the song of the day. And had it not been for the American People working as American people do we would all be speaking two or three foreign languages as president-elect Obama has suggested. Peace and Freedom was not something the Pilgrims received when they stepped on Plymouth Rock simply because they thought they were smarter than those "dumb old Indians". Oh yea, there was that Revolutionary War that we could have lost had it not been for the resolve of the future American Citizens and their leaders. When GW crossed the Delaware there there was no defense on the other side therefore the Americans won that battle with ease. Think, if the other side had a missile defense system we would still be a British Colony. If everybody would only use common sense, we would probably agree more than we disagree. I don't know if anybody remembers, but the Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq/Afganistan War was and will be lost by Politicians and the Main Stream Media. Our great military has to go in to battle with one hand tied behind their back.

Ingrid Eckhoff (guest)
Founder and CEO of Excel Management Services and Advocate for Small Business , CA:

What the Republican party needs to do first and foremost is decide who they are. Are they a party of Schwartzenegger-like conservatives who are more open on social issues or are they ultra right wing all the way? There are ways they can win either way but they must be a truly united force to take back lost territory.

Elizabeth Stassinos (guest)
Assoc. Prof. Criminal Justice , MA:

I greatly enjoy the Arena, but a little advise for the Republican commentators, many of whom it seems are job hunting and getting more than "snarky." For background, I'm from Northern Virginia and teach in Massachusetts at Westfield State College.
I think what you are missing when you try to pit the old Clintonites against the new Barackafellers is that people (and seriously, how did the Reps. lose Virginia, Terry McA just gave a talk at my college announcing he's going for the Governorship!) really want the Clintons without the drama and that's what they voted for too, not all of them, but many. I am one.
Who would not want the economic surplus and the openness to candidates and leaders of diverse backgrounds etc., support for the middle class and a tax on the highest income brackets, maybe even a federal civil union law or health care for kids. When you slam the Obama administration for being too Clinton-heavy that just reinforces the sense for many "new" democrats who voted for Obama that he's thoughtful and not a hawk, that he might actually help renegotiate some mortgages (or extend them with lower monthlies etc.). Aligning Obama and Hillary also shows that he can embrace his rivals, like his hero Lincoln. Not a bad start.

Jesse Sinaiko (guest)
IT Consultant , IL:

To add to the stories about the super-fast and efficient transfer of power in the UK, there is a well known story that after Thatcher was ousted by her own party, and was in the Daimler being driven out of Downing Street, she had no idea where to go - no arrangements had been made and it took several hours to sort out proper accomdation.
But that's parliamentary government. Italian PMs have lasted only a week or two in a couple of circumstances. When an MP is made a cabinet minister, he or she is only allowed a few aides to come with. After all, theoretically, he may be out, or reshuffled, or given a different portfolio in a matter of days.
After 1932 (I think) they moved up the transfer here in the US from March to January. Might it not make sense to move it up a few more week - to right after the first of the year?

Chuck Thies (guest)
Consultant , DC:

If this Open Mic (sic) were being held four years ago, no doubt several people would be weighing-in on the dawn of the permanent Republican majority. Today, a similar discussion is taking place about the dawn of a long-term --if not permanent-- Democratic majority. As a lifelong Democrat I caution my brethren not to travel the path that Republicans followed in these four short years. So, don't overreach; we have time. In fact, we might even have a filibuster-proof Senate majority come 2011. Tilting too far left is not part of the mandate voters gave us. Also, avoid the temptations that lead to scandal and possibly prison. With the right politics and an above-board approach to governing, Democrats may well hold on to power for more than their predecessors in the "permanent majority."

Floria Sheffield (guest)
Supervisor , FL:

Who would really benefit from the bailout, the businesses or the taxpayers? I believe that there are approximately 100 million taxpayers in the US. If each person (head of household) were given a substantial amount of the stimulus money they could pay off their debt, reinvest in the system and get the economy rolling again. Giving $300 per dependent per household is like spitting on a forest fire, the only thing we are doing in this instance is continuing to raise the debt because while it may sound good, the only thing that can be purchased or reinvested in is the grocery store. We need to stop being hoodwinked by the Secretary and get a real stimulus working. Who need financial institutions that have failed in the past to get taxpayers' money, then in turn loan the taxpayers' the money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this much money in one man's hand is a dangerous threat. Money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that's the real danger. We may be looking at approximately $1 Billion dollars for ordinary taxpayers, leaving the Secretary $699 Billion to align his and the lobbyist pockets before giving companies their well deserved "Spa Resorts Retreat" for doing such a good job.

Pamela Irwin (guest)
Adjunct Faculty , TX:

I think Lieberman should be exhiled. After Obama campaigned for Lieberman, which irratated more than a few of us, he doesn't just endorse McCain, he crusaded for McCain. Some of the things he said are unforgivable. Of course, Obama is a much better (and wiser) person than I, which is why I voted for him.
I'm not a huge Hillary fan but I think she'd be perfect as SoS ...if someone can put a leash & muzzle on Bill. I think it would be a brilliant move on Obama's part for many reasons. I fear that he's trying to not fall into the trap that many former Presidents have - appointing too many outsider/newbies. While I applaud his pragmatism, I'm beginning to fear that he's in danger of falling into the opposite trap & wish he would name some non-insider types. I'm hoping we'll see some more diverse choices & hopefully, some more women, minorities & even some Republicans.
On another, somewhat petty, subject - what is all the mike/mic nonsense. I've been a recording engineer for 30 years & now teach Audio Recording Technology, Live Sound Reinforcement & MIDI Sequencing at the college level & NO ONE writes "mike". When "microphone" is abbreviated, it's always "mic". When engineers write it, it's always "mic". In all the textbooks - "mic". In all the product literature & sales catalogs - "mic". Maybe I missed a private joke but it's always "mic". Just sayin'.

Margaret McCann (guest)
painter, professor, writer , NJ:

The high number of Clintonites Obama may utilize is not surprising, and shows Obama's sound, measured, judgement. Competence is proved by experience, so many of the best will have connections to the last Dem administration. He will need stable ground for change (reform). With all our problems he needs the most capable people, period.

To Peter Laffin, the elementary teacher, it's open "mic" as in microphone - check it on Google!!

Pamela Irwin (guest)
Adjunct Faculty , TX:

PS I just searched for "mike" on the largest audio/musical equipment website & not a single microphone showed up in the results. Just sayin'

scott peters (guest)
Small Business Owner , WA:

Missile Defense in Poland and Czech Republic is a mistake and always will be. The approach taken by the Bush administration creates an escalation of tension with Russia, that is not consistent with the benefit derived by deploying the missile defense systems.
Even if the technology implemented was reliable (which it is not). The money and effort would be far better spent by the Obama Administration, improving our language and human intelligence capabilities to penetrate and gain greater understanding of Al Qaeda's world wide network.
In the effort to be proactive in securing the interests of both the E.U and U.S; a combination of strong diplomatic, economic, military and intelligence strategies are a far superior solution to the dependence on a system that has never been implemented against a threat that has not been effectively used.

Stephen Sumner (guest)
Professor Information Systems , NJ:

As important as the economy in the digital age is the joint issues of cyber-security and improving instructional technology. Both are critical for national advancement, and both are virtually (pun intended) ignored by the political hive mind.
There ARE ways to greatly improve security. The computer I am typing on has every bit automatically encrypted. Using government money to build better cyberspace environments in which our children could learn Civics, Civility, and Science might just improve our economic competitiveness.
It's well past time to focus on securing our data and making sure the digital natives (our children and grandchildren) have a program that looks ahead and not behind.
We can leapfrog into the future if we dare to innovate.

Marcus Roberts (guest)
Non-profit communications & fundraising , NY:

Mr. Barbash, I was on the '97 Labour campaign and well remember how fast power changed hands. In fact it was even faster then you might think: a little after 2am on election night John Major picked up the phone from his Downing Street office and asked to speak to Tony Blair. As his call was connected Major heard the Downing Street operator say "I have John Major calling for the Prime Minister."

don thibodeaux (guest)
sculptor , MI:

It's amazing, missile defense in eastern Europe. What else will the NEO-CONS do to impede the new administration. They already need to clean up the DOJ; fix education and health care; repair our international standing (without looking weak); deal with the new frontier-renewable energy; and, ETC., ETC., ETC. Thank goodness intellectualism is back in vogue.

Shaun Dakin (guest)
CEO - The National Political Do Not Contact Registry , VA:

What is one thing that most Americans can agree on that needs to be fixed? The one thing that GOP, DEM and Independent voters are in total agreement?
--> Political robocalls must be added to the Federal and State Do Not Call Registries.
Since the Do Not Call registry (DoNotCall.gov) was put into place in 2003, over 160 million phone numbers have been added with the number of unwanted telemarketing calls plumenting.
Unfortunately, we saw this election cycle the explosion of robo calls. Indeed, according to the PEW research group 81% of Iowa voters received robo calls last November, a good 2 months before the first vote had been cast.
So, President Elect Obama, here is something that you could do that ALL Americans would respect you for:
--> Add political calls to the Federal Do Not Call Registry
Very simple and very powerful.
And, it would cost the US Government virtually nothing.
Don't call us President Elect Obama, we'll call you.

Thomas Nacey (guest)
Student , CA:

You cannot legislate business... alright, you CAN, but you shouldn't. Successful business management takes the kinds of hard, bottom-line driven decisions (ie: layoffs, downsizing of benefits, plant closures, & etc.) that public-office holders are just not prepared to make. So I say give 'em the money or don't. But, for the sake of all that is eternal and holy, don't attempt to micromanage.

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

Two words for Michelle and Barack: Sidwell Friends. (Long live Quaker education!)

Tom Miller (guest)
Sales , IL:

We need an end to protectionist currency manipulation by Asian countries. We cannot move towards real free trade until this malignancy is removed. It is protectionist to rig your currency. The trade imbalance is caused by currency protectionism. The excess foreign liquidity created by the imbalance is what caused this financial mess. Of course the countries using currency protectionism will accuse everyone else of being protectionist if they try to put a halt to this perversion of free trade.

Chris Brown (guest)
Reprobate , WA:

I am really, really tired of the chatterers announcing that Obama has selected so and so for such and such position, and the reports condemning deficiencies (i.e. too few women) in the Obama administration when he has yet to announce his cabinet and all but a few administration officials.
The Obama camp has made it clear that no comments will be made on speculation of appointments, yet the chatterers take a non-denial as confirmation.
A couple of days ago Obama met secretly with his barber, so, really, he must have been offered an appointment.
Please give us a break

Sly Steedman (guest)
COO , CA:

Dean Baker's article regarding Economic Reporters Missed Housing Bubble Impact:
Dean Baker's point is well taken and spot on, after seeing CSPAN hearings this week with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury regarding questioning of the first 350 billion dollar bailout allocation and the TARP plan in the works.
It's not working, and economic reporters should be all over the story as well as the AIG story.
Where are they? On Barack Obama's doorstep? They should be reporting on the faulty, semi "bait and switch" bailout plan to loan money to banks who apply for it. Some of these banks are approved and taking the FEDS funding, but it has not gone to further loan cash to needy homeowners. Example, a bank in Ohio has been purchased up by a larger , more liquid bank who has gotten FED funds and then put 3000-4000 folks out of jobs after aquiring the non-liquid bank. On their balance sheet is bailout money from the FEDS.
The issue is the banks may be the only ones benefiting from TARP plans and so far it has not freed the loaning to the needy homewowners, nor has it helped the housing market turn home sales around. Will it ever? is this bailout deal only for banks and AIG? Banks are keeping the cash.
No doubt unless the FEDS allocate some 300-400 billion for the purpose of homeowners to apply to the FED directly for re-negotiated notes with better rates, the housing market will continue downhill. It looks like John McCain was right on that. Somebody should have gotten that idea into the deal up front. The AIG story is a whole other mess reporters should be all over.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.